Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing (Task 3)

8/14/2019 Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing (Task 3)

1/22

PREPARED FOR

American Petroleum Institute

PREPARED BY

IHS Global Insigh24 Hartwell Ave

Lexington, MA 02421USA

2009

Measur ing the Impac t s of Proposed Pol ic ies to

ydraul ic Fract ur ing on St a te Ec onomies

ask 3 Report

Regulat e H

T


2/22

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

PART 1STUDY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 2

UIC Compliance Scenario ........................................................................................................................ 3Fluid Restrictions Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 5No Fracturing Scenario ............................................................................................................................. 6

PART 2METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 8


3/22

Introduction

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has engaged IHS Global Insight to perform an

independent study to determine the impact potential policy changes pertaining to hydraulic

stimulation or fracturing of oil and natural gas wells (hereafter referred to as hydraulic fracturing)

would have on future hydrocarbon production and the consequent impact on economicperformance. IHS Inc., IHS Global Insight's parent company, holds an extensive well and

production database that provided the basis for assessing national and state-level oil and gas

production under different scenarios. IHS Global Insight prepared the economic assessment using

its U.S. Macroeconomic and state economic models. National economic impacts are described in

the section of the report entitled, Measuring the Economic Impacts of Proposed Policies to

Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing: Task 2 Report"

This study measures the economic consequences of three alternative scenarios in which

increasingly stringent restrictions on hydraulic fracturing lead to three different paths for the U.S.

economy, starting from the deep recession in 2009. The study investigated three scenarios:

Implementation of regulations similar to those used by EPA to regulate the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) program,

Restrictions on the use of certain fluids that are being highlighted by policymakers as

having the potential to impact underground aquifers, and

Elimination of hydraulic fracturing.

This report documents the methodologies and assumptions used to produce the forecast scenarios

for each state economy, and highlights and summarizes key observations and conclusions. The

economic results for the states reflect the US macroeconomic scenarios as presented in the Task 1

and Task 2 reports.

Page 1


4/22

Part 1 Study Results

The oil and natural gas production declines resulting from each of the restricted hydraulic

fracturing scenarios are expected to take a toll on economic activity in every state. But, while all

states will feel the negative impacts on output and employment relative to the reference case, the

depth of the declines depends on the each state's industrial composition. The leading natural gasproducing states (Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma) are generally expected to see the

sharpest declines, though many states with little actual oil and natural gas production are

significantly impacted by the indirect effects which ripple through the entire economy. Though

the changing macroeconomic environment is relevant to each state's economy, some states are

more responsive to changes in the national economy and some are less sensitive depending on

their economic structure and resource base. The states which have stronger links with the national

economy will tend to have more severe impacts in response to changes in the macro economy of

the US. The complete set of employment and gross output impacts for all states in five reference

years are contained in the Appendix. The states most impacted by the restrictions on hydraulic

fracturing are summarized below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. States Most Impacted by Hydraulic Fracturing Scenarios

States Most Impacted:

By Employment LossesTexas, California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia,Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina

By Percent of Employment LossWyoming, West Virginia, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,Colorado, Kentucky, Florida, Arizona

By Output LossesCalifornia, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, Illinois, Virginia,Pennsylvania North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado

By Percent of Output LossWyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana. Texas, Colorado,Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico

Indirect and Spillover Effects. The indirect effects result in large negative impacts in states that

rely heavily on consumer spending, travel and transportation, and new residential and commercial

construction. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Nevada each will experience more severe

employment and output declines. Spillover effects will also disproportionately impact states

which neighbor the natural gas producing regions as their economies rely heavily on demand for

goods and services generated by the nearby energy industry. As a result more severe negative

impacts will be felt in Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, Utah, and Virginia.

Large Economies. States with large economies, by virtue of their size and exposure in many

sectors, experience a large amount of the economic impacts of the three scenarios. In looking at

numbers of jobs lost or lost economic output, Texas, Florida, California, and New York are, as

one might expect, among the worst hit. This is compounded by the fact that large states like

Texas and California are oil and natural gas producers. In each of the scenarios the state of Texas

experiences the greatest economic dislocation in terms of numbers of jobs lost. In 2015 it loses

78,000 jobs under the UIC Compliance scenario, 178,000 jobs under the Fluid Restrictions

Page 2


5/22

scenario, and up to 364,000 jobs under the No Fracturing scenario. California, New York,

Florida, and Pennsylvania also see hundreds of thousands of lost jobs owing to the generally

lower levels of economic activity which result in part from the indirect impacts across other

economic sectors arising from the scenarios.

Though not so large in terms of the absolute number of jobs lost, other states experience the

harshest economic impacts in percentage terms. The greatest relative dislocation occurs in thenatural gas producing states of West Virginia and Wyoming. Economic activity in the UIC

Compliance scenario declines by 1.9% in West Virginia. In Wyoming, economic output falls by

1.6% under the UIC Compliance scenario, 4.6% under the Fluid Restrictions scenario, and 7.5%

under the No Fracturing scenario.

The increasing severity of economic consequences follow closely the increasingly stringent

restrictions on hydraulic fracturing. Economic impacts reach their maximum severity in 2015

with a 2.3% loss in real GDP accompanied by a 2.1% reduction in employed workers nationwide

under the production losses stemming from the No Fracturing Scenario. The path of rising energy

prices affects the performance of each state economy through both demand and supply channels.

On the demand side, higher energy prices reduce consumer spending due to rising fuel costs and

higher prices of both domestically-produced and imported consumer goods. On the supply side,higher energy costs raise costs of producing goods and services, causing corporations to cut back

investment as demand for their products declines.

UIC Compliance Scenario

In the UIC Compliance Scenario, natural gas wellhead revenue in West Virginia and Kentucky is

down close to 60% in 2015 when compared to the reference case. As a result, these states are

among the top 5 in terms of percentage loss in employment and Gross State Product (GSP) 1.

Wyoming and Oklahoma are also expected to see steep declines in employment and output.

While wellhead revenues are not expected to drop as much in these states, both Wyoming and

Oklahoma are highly dependent on their energy sector and will see significant spillover effectsfrom reduced drilling and investment in this sector. Meanwhile, Nevada appears in the top 5 not

because of direct impacts on its mining sector (which depends little on oil and natural gas

extraction) but because of the macroeconomic impacts on its large construction and travel and

entertainment sectors.

1 Gross State Product is a measure of economic output.

Page 3


6/22

Figure 2. Estimated Impact of UIC Compliance Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impactsby Percentof Jobs Lost:

Employment(%)

Employment(thousands)

Real GSP(%)

Real GSP(Millions 2000$)

West Virginia -2.02% -15.9 -1.93% -965

Wyoming -1.49% -4.6 -1.62% -359

Kentucky -0.93% -18.1 -0.98% -1,401

Nevada -0.77% -10.5 -0.66% -810

Oklahoma -0.77% -13.1 -0.81% -996

Texas -0.67% -78.4 -0.75% -8,335

Colorado -0.66% -16.6 -0.76% -1,803

Florida -0.65% -55.6 -0.69% -5,049

Louisiana -0.64% -13.0 -0.74% -1,253

Virginia -0.61% -24.8 -0.70% -2,702

In terms of employment, the largest absolute losses are in Texas, which loses 78,000 jobs in 2015.In terms of lost real output, Texas ranks second, following California, where real GSP is expectedto decline by more than $10 billion when compared to the reference case. California and otherlarge states like Florida and New York join Texas at the top in terms of number of jobs lost byvirtue of their size. Losses in these states are driven not by the direct impact on the energy sector,but by the macroeconomic impacts of the restrictions on income, consumer spending and businessinvestment.

Figure 3. Estimated Impact of UIC Compliance Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impactsby Numberof Jobs Lost:

Employment(%)


Real GSP(%)


Texas -0.67% -78.4 -0.75% -8,335

California -0.42% -66.4 -0.57% -10,395

Florida -0.65% -55.6 -0.69% -5,049

New York -0.36% -32.4 -0.43% -4,734

Pennsylvania -0.42% -25.3 -0.47% -2,348

Virginia -0.61% -24.8 -0.70% -2,702

Georgia -0.56% -24.8 -0.63% -2,569

Ohio -0.41% -22.2 -0.43% -1,854

Illinois -0.33% -20.1 -0.42% -2,418

North Carolina -0.42% -18.4 -0.54% -2,173

Page 4


7/22

Fluid Restrictions Scenario

The Fluid Restrictions Scenario results in the sharpest production declines in Louisiana,

Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Under this scenario, Louisiana is expected to see producer wellhead

revenue decline nearly 35% in 2015 compared to the reference case. In Wyoming and Oklahomarevenue will be down by more than 20%. Wyoming's economy, which is sensitive to natural gas

drilling and revenues, contracts by more than 4% in terms of both employment and output.

Louisiana, West Virginia, and Oklahoma see economic activity contract overall by nearly 2%.

Indirect impacts on consumer spending push Nevada, Colorado, and Florida down by nearly

1.5%.

Texas, with an expected wellhead revenue drop of more than 18% in 2015, again has the largest

absolute level of job losses 178,000. California, also a big loser in terms of number of jobs,

suffers slightly greater declines in output, of $22 billion by 2015.

Figure 4. Estimated Impact of Fluid Restrictions Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)


Employment(%)


Real GSP(%)


Wyoming -4.30% -13.2 -4.55% -1,010

Louisiana -1.85% -37.8 -2.06% -3,509

West Virginia -1.77% -13.9 -1.58% -790

Oklahoma -1.75% -30.0 -1.85% -2,265

Nevada -1.71% -23.4 -1.49% -1,832

Texas -1.52% -178.3 -1.69% -18,790

Colorado -1.42% -36.0 -1.63% -3,889

Florida -1.36% -116.0 -1.43% -10,544

New Mexico -1.35% -12.3 -1.51% -1,079

Arizona -1.28% -36.0 -1.47% -3,687

Page 5


8/22

Figure 5. Estimated Impact of Fluid Restrictions Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)


Employment(%)


Real GSP(%)


Texas -1.52% -178.3 -1.79% -18,790

California -0.89% -141.0 -1.20% -21,935

Florida -1.36% -116.0 -1.43% -10,544

New York -0.70% -63.1 -0.86% -9,337

Georgia -1.16% -51.1 -1.30% -5,307

Pennsylvania -0.74% -44.5 -0.84% -4,211

Illinois -0.70% -42.5 -0.89% -5,111

Virginia -1.04% -42.2 -1.22% -4,729

Ohio -0.71% -38.4 -0.75% -3,242

North Carolina -0.86% -38.0 -1.12% -4,492

No Fracturing Scenario

The No Fracturing Scenario is the most restrictive of the three scenarios. Oklahoma, West

Virginia, Kentucky and Texas suffer the largest natural gas production declines under this

scenario. They join Wyoming at the top in terms of employment and real output declines.

Wyoming's declines in excess of 7% are the largest state-level negative impacts found in this

study. West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana all experience declines in excess of 3% of

employment and output, resulting from large losses in the energy sector.

In addition, spillover impacts are very large in Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Kentucky, Arizona,

and Florida. In this scenario, Texas still has the largest number of jobs lost, with employment

declining by 364,000 and a GSP loss of nearly $37 billion.

Page 6


9/22

Figure 6. Estimated Impact of No Fracturing Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference case in 2015)


Employment(%)


Real GSP(%)


Wyoming -7.24% -22.2 -7.53% -1,672

West Virginia -3.92% -30.8 -3.79% -1,898

Nevada -3.65% -50.1 -3.11% -3,816

Oklahoma -3.56% -61.0 -3.67% -4,508

Texas -3.10% -364.5 -3.31% -36,796

Louisiana -3.04% -62.1 -3.32% -5,653

Colorado -2.93% -74.1 -3.22% -7,686

Montana -2.71% -12.9 -2.48% -768

Kentucky -2.71% -52.7 -2.86% -4,098

Arizona -2.69% -75.7 -2.92% -7,334

Figure 7. Estimated Impact of No Fracturing Scenario on Employment and GSP(Difference from Reference case in 2015)


Employment(%)


Real GSP(%)


Texas -3.10% -364.5 -3.31% -36,796

California -1.85% -291.9 -2.39% -43,689

Florida -2.68% -228.2 -2.78% -20,441

New York -1.59% -143.1 -1.91% -20,795

Pennsylvania -1.80% -108.3 -2.07% -10,357

Georgia -2.39% -105.5 -2.50% -10,174

Illinois -1.72% -104.3 -2.15% -12,361

Ohio -1.83% -98.9 -1.92% -8,254

Virginia -2.15% -87.2 -2.60% -10,028

North Carolina -1.95% -85.9 -2.25% -9,054

Page 7


10/22

Part 2 Methodology and Assumptions

The economic results for the states reflect the US macroeconomic scenarios as presented in the

preceding sections. IHS Global Insight's state econometric modeling system allows us to fully

incorporate alternative macroeconomic forecasts as they impact the economic performance of

each state. Macroeconomic outcomes are key drivers in the demand for the goods and servicesproduced by firms in each state, and in the demand for labor services which generate income for

state residents. In addition, market prices in national or international markets, especially energy

prices in these cases, constitute key determinants of household budget constraints and business

cost functions, thus affecting a broad range of economic activity within each state economy.

For each of the US simulations described above we derive the state forecast outcomes determined

by, and consistent with, the US outcome. These projected impacts, or differences from the

reference case forecast, vary in magnitude across the states. They do so because states vary

considerably in their industrial structure, that is, the composition of industries and firms which

make up their economic base. Sectors across the US economy are affected to different degrees by

the alternative simulations and the impact on each state will be influenced by the degree to which

its industries suffer greater or lesser impacts. Also, our model equations are estimatedeconometrically from state-specific, bottom-up, data. This allows differential responsiveness,

even across sectors or industries, as a result of the unique make-up of the state's industry,

demographics, taxes, climate, real estate markets, and other factors.

But this solution is just one part of our hydraulic fracturing analysis. The direct impact of the

simulated policy restrictions are of course felt by the natural gas industry in each state. The

industry is a significant driver in some state economies, less so in others. This dependence is

represented in the employment, earnings, and output data in our models. Moreover, the three

alternative scenarios differentially affect the particular oil and natural gas drilling industries of the

states by virtue of their geography, geology, and drilling industry.

Page 8


11/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance ScenarioTotal Employment

Difference from Baseline, Thousands2010 2012 2015 2018 2020

Texas TX -17.9 -51.7 -78.4 -63.0 -43.0

California CA -13.5 -39.9 -66.4 -51.0 -32.1

Florida FL -10.8 -31.9 -55.6 -48.2 -32.9

New York NY -7.4 -21.2 -32.4 -21.2 -10.6

Pennsylvania PA -5.0 -14.8 -25.3 -18.9 -10.4

Virginia VA -4.1 -13.1 -24.8 -26.2 -23.6

Georgia GA -4.4 -14.3 -24.8 -17.2 -2.8

Ohio OH -5.0 -14.4 -22.2 -13.9 -4.4

Illinois IL -4.4 -13.2 -20.1 -10.1 0.2

North Carolina NC -3.8 -11.4 -18.4 -10.0 3.6

Kentucky KY -3.6 -11.2 -18.1 -14.5 -9.2

Arizona AZ -3.1 -9.6 -16.9 -14.0 -9.2

Colorado CO -3.1 -9.8 -16.6 -13.9 -9.5

West Virginia WV -3.0 -9.2 -15.9 -15.9 -13.6

New Jersey NJ -2.7 -8.6 -14.4 -8.3 2.0Oklahoma OK -3.3 -9.1 -13.1 -10.8 -7.7

Louisiana LA -2.6 -8.1 -13.0 -12.1 -9.9

Massachusetts MA -2.5 -7.7 -12.1 -6.1 2.8

Michigan MI -3.1 -8.3 -11.8 -5.3 0.7

Washington WA -2.5 -7.6 -11.8 -5.3 4.0

Tennessee TN -2.4 -7.1 -11.2 -5.7 3.1

Nevada NV -1.7 -5.5 -10.5 -9.9 -7.1

Missouri MO -1.9 -6.2 -10.5 -6.3 1.0

Maryland MD -1.9 -6.1 -10.2 -6.1 0.8

South Carolina SC -1.9 -6.0 -10.0 -6.2 0.5

Minnesota MN -1.7 -5.5 -9.5 -6.1 0.2

Indiana IN -2.2 -6.1 -9.0 -4.0 1.1

Alabama AL -2.0 -5.6 -8.9 -6.5 -3.4

Oregon OR -2.2 -5.3 -8.2 -5.5 -2.4

Utah UT -1.4 -4.2 -6.9 -5.7 -3.9Wisconsin WI -1.4 -4.5 -6.6 -0.6 7.9

Mississippi MS -1.3 -3.8 -6.1 -4.4 -2.2Kansas KS -1.4 -3.9 -5.8 -4.2 -2.5

Arkansas AR -1.5 -3.9 -5.3 -3.5 -1.5

New Mexico NM -1.0 -3.1 -5.1 -4.7 -3.7

Connecticut CT -0.9 -3.0 -5.1 -3.0 0.8

Wyoming WY -0.9 -2.9 -4.6 -4.5 -4.0Iowa IA -0.9 -2.8 -4.0 -0.7 3.8

Nebraska NE -0.7 -2.0 -3.0 -2.1 -1.1

Montana MT -0.6 -1.7 -2.8 -2.3 -1.6

Idaho ID -0.5 -1.5 -2.6 -1.5 0.3

New Hampshire NH -0.5 -1.6 -2.6 -1.0 1.1

Maine ME -0.4 -1.3 -2.3 -1.6 -0.3

Hawaii HI -0.3 -1.0 -1.9 -1.4 -0.2North Dakota ND -0.5 -1.3 -1.9 -1.4 -0.8

District of Columbia DC -0.3 -0.9 -1.8 -1.9 -1.0

Delaware DE -0.3 -0.9 -1.8 -1.4 -0.4

South Dakota SD -0.4 -1.1 -1.6 -1.0 -0.4

Rhode Island RI -0.3 -0.9 -1.5 -0.8 0.2

Alaska AK -0.2 -0.7 -1.4 -1.1 -0.5

Vermont VT -0.2 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 0.4

US -139.7 -416.2 -675.5 -491.6 -221.0

Page 9


12/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance ScenarioTotal Employment

Difference from Baseline, Percent2010 2012 2015 2018 2020

West Virginia WV -0.40% -1.21% -2.02% -1.98% -1.67%

Wyoming WY -0.32% -0.98% -1.49% -1.45% -1.27%

Kentucky KY -0.20% -0.61% -0.93% -0.72% -0.45%Nevada NV -0.14% -0.43% -0.77% -0.69% -0.47%

Oklahoma OK -0.21% -0.56% -0.77% -0.61% -0.43%

Texas TX -0.17% -0.47% -0.67% -0.51% -0.34%

Colorado CO -0.13% -0.41% -0.66% -0.53% -0.36%

Florida FL -0.14% -0.41% -0.65% -0.54% -0.35%

Louisiana LA -0.13% -0.41% -0.64% -0.58% -0.47%

Virginia VA -0.11% -0.34% -0.61% -0.62% -0.55%

Arizona AZ -0.13% -0.37% -0.60% -0.47% -0.30%

Montana MT -0.14% -0.38% -0.58% -0.47% -0.33%

New Mexico NM -0.13% -0.36% -0.56% -0.50% -0.39%Georgia GA -0.11% -0.34% -0.56% -0.37% -0.06%

Mississippi MS -0.12% -0.33% -0.50% -0.36% -0.18%

North Dakota ND -0.14% -0.35% -0.49% -0.34% -0.18%

Utah UT -0.11% -0.32% -0.49% -0.39% -0.26%South Carolina SC -0.10% -0.31% -0.48% -0.29% 0.02%

Oregon OR -0.14% -0.31% -0.45% -0.30% -0.13%

Alabama AL -0.11% -0.28% -0.43% -0.30% -0.16%

Arkansas AR -0.13% -0.32% -0.42% -0.27% -0.12%

Pennsylvania PA -0.09% -0.25% -0.42% -0.31% -0.17%

California CA -0.09% -0.26% -0.42% -0.31% -0.19%

North Carolina NC -0.10% -0.27% -0.42% -0.22% 0.08%

Ohio OH -0.10% -0.28% -0.41% -0.25% -0.08%

Kansas KS -0.10% -0.28% -0.40% -0.28% -0.17%

Alaska AK -0.06% -0.22% -0.40% -0.32% -0.13%

Tennessee TN -0.09% -0.26% -0.38% -0.19% 0.10%

Delaware DE -0.07% -0.22% -0.38% -0.28% -0.07%

New Hampshire NH -0.08% -0.25% -0.38% -0.15% 0.16%South Dakota SD -0.09% -0.26% -0.38% -0.23% -0.09%

Washington WA -0.08% -0.25% -0.38% -0.17% 0.12%

Idaho ID -0.08% -0.24% -0.37% -0.21% 0.04%

Maryland MD -0.07% -0.23% -0.37% -0.22% 0.03%

Maine ME -0.07% -0.22% -0.36% -0.25% -0.05%Missouri MO -0.07% -0.22% -0.36% -0.21% 0.03%

Massachusetts MA -0.08% -0.23% -0.36% -0.18% 0.08%

New York NY -0.09% -0.24% -0.36% -0.23% -0.11%

New Jersey NJ -0.07% -0.21% -0.34% -0.19% 0.05%

Illinois IL -0.08% -0.22% -0.33% -0.16% 0.00%

Minnesota MN -0.06% -0.20% -0.33% -0.21% 0.01%

Nebraska NE -0.07% -0.20% -0.30% -0.20% -0.10%

Vermont VT -0.06% -0.19% -0.30% -0.13% 0.11%

Indiana IN -0.08% -0.21% -0.30% -0.13% 0.04%

Connecticut CT -0.06% -0.18% -0.30% -0.17% 0.05%

Rhode Island RI -0.06% -0.19% -0.30% -0.17% 0.05%

Michigan MI -0.08% -0.21% -0.29% -0.13% 0.02%

Hawaii HI -0.05% -0.16% -0.29% -0.21% -0.03%

Iowa IA -0.06% -0.18% -0.26% -0.05% 0.23%

District of Columbia DC -0.04% -0.12% -0.24% -0.24% -0.13%

Wisconsin WI -0.05% -0.16% -0.22% -0.02% 0.26%

US -0.11% -0.30% -0.47% -0.33% -0.15%

Page 10


13/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance ScenarioReal Gross State Product

Difference from Baseline, Millions of 2000 $2010 2012 2015 2018 2020

California CA -2,367 -6,169 -10,395 -9,311 -7,423

Texas TX -1,986 -5,304 -8,335 -7,673 -6,437

Florida FL -1,086 -2,896 -5,049 -4,750 -3,804New York NY -1,303 -3,167 -4,734 -3,219 -1,724

Virginia VA -589 -1,591 -2,702 -2,451 -1,888

Georgia GA -520 -1,455 -2,569 -2,204 -1,136

Illinois IL -705 -1,706 -2,418 -1,192 330

Pennsylvania PA -593 -1,506 -2,348 -1,483 -510

North Carolina NC -479 -1,294 -2,173 -1,624 -488

Ohio OH -517 -1,266 -1,854 -1,123 -364

Colorado CO -370 -1,048 -1,803 -1,697 -1,392

Arizona AZ -365 -987 -1,730 -1,614 -1,312

New Jersey NJ -461 -1,169 -1,673 -568 944Massachusetts MA -393 -1,028 -1,623 -1,040 -76

Washington WA -357 -952 -1,551 -1,075 -204

Kentucky KY -305 -869 -1,401 -1,179 -865

Louisiana LA -271 -759 -1,253 -1,300 -1,229Minnesota MN -267 -706 -1,155 -802 -128

Tennessee TN -275 -707 -1,137 -755 -51

Maryland MD -278 -718 -1,077 -461 449

Michigan MI -369 -830 -1,067 -335 294

Connecticut CT -237 -632 -1,045 -760 -205

Oklahoma OK -259 -680 -996 -889 -710

West Virginia WV -196 -578 -965 -919 -740

Missouri MO -233 -598 -883 -374 353

South Carolina SC -187 -508 -870 -700 -300

Oregon OR -252 -556 -847 -621 -357

Alabama AL -209 -525 -834 -656 -427

Nevada NV -173 -469 -810 -728 -533

Indiana IN -235 -530 -717 -295 108Wisconsin WI -201 -501 -714 -198 543

Utah UT -153 -403 -686 -664 -566

Kansas KS -147 -363 -539 -390 -235

Arkansas AR -146 -354 -514 -400 -266

Iowa IA -125 -316 -467 -255 56New Mexico NM -106 -278 -459 -442 -378

Mississippi MS -112 -284 -445 -342 -210

Wyoming WY -72 -220 -359 -379 -362

New Hampshire NH -71 -195 -336 -279 -138

District of Columbia DC -82 -205 -319 -181 46

Nebraska NE -88 -212 -318 -221 -126

Delaware DE -66 -179 -305 -230 -69

Idaho ID -51 -131 -200 -94 67

Alaska AK -34 -100 -187 -189 -140

Hawaii HI -46 -115 -186 -119 4

Maine ME -47 -119 -186 -116 0

Rhode Island RI -45 -115 -175 -93 33

South Dakota SD -44 -110 -174 -137 -93

North Dakota ND -44 -105 -158 -136 -108

Montana MT -45 -107 -147 -89 -31

Vermont VT -25 -64 -94 -41 36

US -17,587 -45,680 -72,980 -56,795 -31,762

Page 11


14/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance ScenarioReal Gross State Product


West Virginia WV -0.44% -1.23% -1.93% -1.73% -1.33%

Wyoming WY -0.37% -1.05% -1.62% -1.60% -1.46%

Kentucky KY -0.24% -0.64% -0.98% -0.77% -0.55%Oklahoma OK -0.25% -0.60% -0.81% -0.66% -0.50%

Colorado CO -0.18% -0.48% -0.76% -0.65% -0.50%

Texas TX -0.22% -0.53% -0.75% -0.62% -0.49%

Louisiana LA -0.18% -0.48% -0.74% -0.72% -0.65%

Virginia VA -0.18% -0.45% -0.70% -0.58% -0.42%

Arizona AZ -0.17% -0.44% -0.69% -0.58% -0.44%

Florida FL -0.18% -0.44% -0.69% -0.58% -0.43%

Nevada NV -0.17% -0.42% -0.66% -0.54% -0.37%

Utah UT -0.17% -0.42% -0.65% -0.57% -0.45%

New Mexico NM -0.17% -0.42% -0.64% -0.57% -0.46%Georgia GA -0.15% -0.40% -0.63% -0.49% -0.24%

North Dakota ND -0.19% -0.42% -0.59% -0.47% -0.35%

New Hampshire NH -0.14% -0.37% -0.59% -0.45% -0.21%

South Carolina SC -0.15% -0.37% -0.58% -0.43% -0.17%California CA -0.15% -0.37% -0.57% -0.47% -0.35%

Alaska AK -0.12% -0.33% -0.56% -0.52% -0.37%

Arkansas AR -0.18% -0.42% -0.56% -0.40% -0.25%

Mississippi MS -0.16% -0.37% -0.54% -0.39% -0.23%

North Carolina NC -0.14% -0.35% -0.54% -0.37% -0.10%

Alabama AL -0.15% -0.36% -0.52% -0.38% -0.23%

Delaware DE -0.13% -0.33% -0.52% -0.36% -0.10%

South Dakota SD -0.15% -0.35% -0.51% -0.37% -0.24%

Oregon OR -0.18% -0.36% -0.50% -0.33% -0.18%

Washington WA -0.13% -0.33% -0.49% -0.31% -0.06%

Connecticut CT -0.13% -0.32% -0.49% -0.33% -0.09%

Kansas KS -0.15% -0.35% -0.48% -0.32% -0.19%

Montana MT -0.16% -0.37% -0.48% -0.27% -0.09%Pennsylvania PA -0.13% -0.32% -0.47% -0.28% -0.09%

Tennessee TN -0.13% -0.32% -0.47% -0.28% -0.02%

Massachusetts MA -0.13% -0.31% -0.46% -0.28% -0.02%

Minnesota MN -0.12% -0.30% -0.45% -0.29% -0.04%

New York NY -0.14% -0.31% -0.43% -0.27% -0.14%Ohio OH -0.14% -0.31% -0.43% -0.25% -0.08%

Illinois IL -0.14% -0.32% -0.42% -0.19% 0.05%

Maine ME -0.12% -0.28% -0.41% -0.24% 0.00%

Missouri MO -0.12% -0.30% -0.41% -0.16% 0.14%

Maryland MD -0.12% -0.29% -0.40% -0.16% 0.15%

Nebraska NE -0.13% -0.29% -0.40% -0.26% -0.14%

Rhode Island RI -0.12% -0.28% -0.40% -0.20% 0.07%

Vermont VT -0.12% -0.28% -0.39% -0.16% 0.13%

Iowa IA -0.11% -0.27% -0.38% -0.20% 0.04%

New Jersey NJ -0.12% -0.28% -0.37% -0.12% 0.19%

Idaho ID -0.11% -0.27% -0.37% -0.16% 0.11%

District of Columbia DC -0.10% -0.24% -0.36% -0.19% 0.05%

Hawaii HI -0.09% -0.21% -0.32% -0.19% 0.01%

Wisconsin WI -0.10% -0.24% -0.31% -0.08% 0.21%

Michigan MI -0.12% -0.26% -0.31% -0.09% 0.08%

Indiana IN -0.12% -0.25% -0.31% -0.12% 0.04%

US -0.15% -0.37% -0.54% -0.39% -0.21%

Page 12


15/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions ScenarioTotal Employment


Texas TX -39.5 -113.9 -178.3 -155.4 -105.4

California CA -28.2 -84.6 -141.0 -114.0 -65.8

Florida FL -22.4 -66.5 -116.0 -106.5 -69.5New York NY -14.4 -41.4 -63.1 -41.7 -15.3

Georgia GA -9.0 -29.5 -51.1 -41.7 -17.2

Pennsylvania PA -10.2 -28.8 -44.5 -30.6 -10.9

Illinois IL -9.1 -27.9 -42.5 -23.3 1.3

Virginia VA -7.1 -22.5 -42.2 -44.5 -37.7

Ohio OH -8.8 -25.7 -38.4 -21.9 -0.3

North Carolina NC -7.9 -23.5 -38.0 -26.2 -3.1

Louisiana LA -6.6 -22.9 -37.8 -38.7 -32.2

Arizona AZ -6.7 -20.7 -36.0 -31.7 -20.1

Colorado CO -6.6 -20.9 -36.0 -32.4 -21.7Oklahoma OK -7.0 -20.0 -30.0 -27.0 -19.1

New Jersey NJ -5.5 -17.8 -29.7 -21.8 -5.2

Massachusetts MA -5.1 -15.9 -25.0 -16.3 -1.4

Michigan MI -6.4 -17.5 -24.9 -12.1 2.6Washington WA -5.1 -15.8 -24.4 -14.7 1.2

Nevada NV -3.7 -12.2 -23.4 -23.3 -16.8

Kentucky KY -5.1 -15.2 -23.2 -16.9 -6.7

Tennessee TN -5.0 -14.7 -23.2 -15.3 -0.2

Missouri MO -4.0 -12.9 -21.6 -16.2 -4.3

Maryland MD -3.9 -12.6 -21.2 -15.9 -4.7

Alabama AL -4.4 -12.6 -20.7 -16.6 -9.0

South Carolina SC -4.0 -12.3 -20.6 -15.5 -4.1

Minnesota MN -3.4 -11.4 -19.6 -15.9 -6.0

Indiana IN -4.7 -13.2 -19.3 -9.8 2.5

Oregon OR -3.8 -10.9 -17.5 -12.9 -5.5

Arkansas AR -4.5 -11.6 -15.4 -11.7 -6.5

Mississippi MS -3.0 -9.0 -14.5 -11.7 -6.3Utah UT -2.9 -8.7 -14.4 -12.6 -8.0

West Virginia WV -2.7 -8.4 -13.9 -13.3 -10.2

Wisconsin WI -2.8 -9.3 -13.5 -4.1 10.2

Wyoming WY -2.6 -8.3 -13.2 -13.5 -11.9

Kansas KS -2.9 -8.1 -12.3 -9.3 -5.0New Mexico NM -2.5 -7.5 -12.3 -11.9 -9.2

Connecticut CT -1.9 -6.2 -10.5 -7.9 -1.9

Iowa IA -1.9 -5.8 -8.3 -3.2 4.6

Nebraska NE -1.4 -4.1 -6.3 -4.5 -1.9

Montana MT -1.2 -3.5 -5.8 -5.1 -3.5

Idaho ID -1.0 -3.2 -5.3 -3.9 -0.9

New Hampshire NH -1.1 -3.4 -5.3 -2.9 0.8

Maine ME -0.9 -2.8 -4.8 -4.1 -2.0

Hawaii HI -0.6 -2.1 -4.0 -3.6 -1.9

North Dakota ND -0.9 -2.5 -3.8 -2.9 -1.4


Delaware DE -0.6 -2.0 -3.6 -3.3 -1.8

South Dakota SD -0.8 -2.2 -3.4 -2.2 -0.6

Rhode Island RI -0.6 -1.8 -3.0 -2.2 -0.6

Alaska AK -0.4 -1.5 -2.8 -2.7 -1.8

Vermont VT -0.3 -1.2 -1.9 -1.2 0.1

US -285.3 -859.2 -1,391.3 -1,101.2 -538.1

Page 13


16/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions ScenarioTotal Employment


Wyoming WY -0.90% -2.81% -4.30% -4.36% -3.82%

Louisiana LA -0.34% -1.16% -1.85% -1.87% -1.54%

West Virginia WV -0.37% -1.11% -1.77% -1.66% -1.25%Oklahoma OK -0.45% -1.22% -1.75% -1.53% -1.06%

Nevada NV -0.30% -0.97% -1.71% -1.61% -1.12%

Texas TX -0.37% -1.03% -1.52% -1.27% -0.84%

Colorado CO -0.29% -0.87% -1.42% -1.24% -0.82%

Florida FL -0.30% -0.85% -1.36% -1.18% -0.75%

New Mexico NM -0.31% -0.87% -1.35% -1.26% -0.96%

Arizona AZ -0.27% -0.79% -1.28% -1.07% -0.66%

Arkansas AR -0.39% -0.96% -1.23% -0.91% -0.50%

Montana MT -0.27% -0.78% -1.22% -1.05% -0.70%

Mississippi MS -0.27% -0.78% -1.20% -0.95% -0.51%Kentucky KY -0.28% -0.82% -1.20% -0.84% -0.33%

Georgia GA -0.23% -0.71% -1.16% -0.91% -0.37%

Virginia VA -0.19% -0.58% -1.04% -1.06% -0.88%

Utah UT -0.23% -0.66% -1.03% -0.86% -0.53%South Carolina SC -0.22% -0.64% -1.00% -0.73% -0.19%

Alabama AL -0.23% -0.64% -1.00% -0.78% -0.42%

North Dakota ND -0.24% -0.67% -0.98% -0.73% -0.35%

Oregon OR -0.23% -0.64% -0.97% -0.70% -0.29%

California CA -0.20% -0.56% -0.89% -0.70% -0.39%


Kansas KS -0.21% -0.58% -0.84% -0.62% -0.33%

Alaska AK -0.12% -0.45% -0.81% -0.77% -0.49%

Tennessee TN -0.19% -0.53% -0.79% -0.50% -0.01%

Delaware DE -0.14% -0.45% -0.78% -0.69% -0.37%

New Hampshire NH -0.17% -0.52% -0.78% -0.42% 0.12%

Washington WA -0.18% -0.53% -0.78% -0.46% 0.04%

South Dakota SD -0.19% -0.52% -0.77% -0.51% -0.14%Idaho ID -0.16% -0.49% -0.77% -0.54% -0.13%

Maryland MD -0.15% -0.48% -0.76% -0.56% -0.16%

Maine ME -0.15% -0.45% -0.75% -0.64% -0.31%

Missouri MO -0.15% -0.46% -0.75% -0.55% -0.15%

Massachusetts MA -0.16% -0.49% -0.75% -0.48% -0.04%Pennsylvania PA -0.18% -0.49% -0.74% -0.50% -0.18%

Ohio OH -0.17% -0.49% -0.71% -0.40% -0.01%

New Jersey NJ -0.14% -0.44% -0.71% -0.51% -0.12%

New York NY -0.17% -0.47% -0.70% -0.45% -0.16%

Illinois IL -0.16% -0.48% -0.70% -0.38% 0.02%

Minnesota MN -0.13% -0.41% -0.68% -0.53% -0.20%

Indiana IN -0.17% -0.45% -0.64% -0.32% 0.08%

Nebraska NE -0.15% -0.42% -0.62% -0.43% -0.18%

Michigan MI -0.16% -0.45% -0.62% -0.30% 0.06%

Rhode Island RI -0.13% -0.38% -0.61% -0.45% -0.11%

Vermont VT -0.12% -0.38% -0.61% -0.38% 0.02%

Connecticut CT -0.11% -0.37% -0.61% -0.45% -0.11%

Hawaii HI -0.10% -0.33% -0.60% -0.53% -0.27%

Iowa IA -0.13% -0.38% -0.53% -0.20% 0.28%


Wisconsin WI -0.10% -0.33% -0.45% -0.14% 0.33%

US -0.21% -0.62% -0.96% -0.74% -0.36%

Page 14


17/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions ScenarioReal Gross State Product


California CA -4,927 -12,932 -21,935 -20,643 -15,507

Texas TX -4,320 -11,576 -18,790 -18,512 -15,072

Florida FL -2,252 -6,019 -10,544 -10,455 -7,970New York NY -2,582 -6,242 -9,337 -6,524 -2,723

Georgia GA -1,074 -2,999 -5,307 -5,182 -3,494

Illinois IL -1,463 -3,568 -5,111 -2,823 762

Virginia VA -1,084 -2,853 -4,729 -4,203 -2,794

North Carolina NC -989 -2,666 -4,492 -3,945 -2,091

Pennsylvania PA -1,220 -2,951 -4,211 -2,400 -112

Colorado CO -786 -2,220 -3,889 -3,906 -3,106

Arizona AZ -771 -2,103 -3,687 -3,625 -2,826

Louisiana LA -662 -2,063 -3,509 -3,906 -3,614

New Jersey NJ -950 -2,408 -3,464 -1,752 877Massachusetts MA -812 -2,118 -3,360 -2,625 -1,029

Ohio OH -960 -2,292 -3,242 -1,789 11

Washington WA -738 -1,965 -3,209 -2,663 -1,239

Minnesota MN -551 -1,456 -2,389 -2,002 -915Tennessee TN -568 -1,457 -2,355 -1,900 -733

Oklahoma OK -555 -1,481 -2,265 -2,193 -1,720

Michigan MI -762 -1,730 -2,255 -833 714

Maryland MD -573 -1,479 -2,229 -1,310 265

Connecticut CT -490 -1,303 -2,160 -1,863 -970

Alabama AL -447 -1,155 -1,894 -1,641 -1,051

Kentucky KY -458 -1,203 -1,849 -1,464 -837

Nevada NV -380 -1,048 -1,832 -1,763 -1,280

Missouri MO -479 -1,232 -1,826 -1,060 197

Oregon OR -450 -1,136 -1,811 -1,454 -787

South Carolina SC -385 -1,048 -1,798 -1,667 -1,025

Indiana IN -491 -1,125 -1,549 -743 251

Wisconsin WI -414 -1,031 -1,478 -685 582Utah UT -315 -838 -1,434 -1,453 -1,178

Arkansas AR -393 -981 -1,386 -1,190 -828

Kansas KS -302 -751 -1,134 -877 -475

New Mexico NM -247 -659 -1,079 -1,093 -907

Mississippi MS -251 -660 -1,056 -897 -558Wyoming WY -198 -614 -1,010 -1,105 -1,041

Iowa IA -259 -650 -967 -681 -171

West Virginia WV -200 -536 -790 -601 -296

New Hampshire NH -147 -403 -695 -660 -439

District of Columbia DC -168 -423 -660 -481 -115

Nebraska NE -181 -439 -659 -486 -236

Delaware DE -137 -370 -630 -559 -299

Idaho ID -105 -269 -415 -265 4

Alaska AK -71 -206 -386 -435 -377

Hawaii HI -96 -237 -385 -312 -127

Maine ME -97 -245 -385 -298 -109

Rhode Island RI -93 -237 -362 -247 -38

South Dakota SD -89 -224 -357 -298 -184

North Dakota ND -79 -201 -319 -291 -214

Montana MT -89 -217 -310 -205 -62

Vermont VT -51 -131 -195 -115 17

US -36,163 -94,145 -151,120 -128,080 -74,870

Page 15


18/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions ScenarioReal Gross State Product


Wyoming WY -1.00% -2.95% -4.55% -4.67% -4.20%

Louisiana LA -0.44% -1.30% -2.06% -2.15% -1.90%

Oklahoma OK -0.53% -1.31% -1.85% -1.64% -1.21%Texas TX -0.47% -1.16% -1.69% -1.50% -1.14%

Colorado CO -0.39% -1.02% -1.63% -1.50% -1.12%

West Virginia WV -0.45% -1.14% -1.58% -1.13% -0.53%

Arkansas AR -0.49% -1.16% -1.51% -1.19% -0.78%

New Mexico NM -0.40% -1.01% -1.51% -1.40% -1.09%

Nevada NV -0.37% -0.94% -1.49% -1.31% -0.89%

Arizona AZ -0.37% -0.93% -1.47% -1.30% -0.94%

Florida FL -0.37% -0.92% -1.43% -1.28% -0.91%

Utah UT -0.35% -0.87% -1.35% -1.24% -0.94%

Georgia GA -0.32% -0.81% -1.30% -1.16% -0.73%Kentucky KY -0.35% -0.89% -1.29% -0.96% -0.53%

Mississippi MS -0.35% -0.87% -1.28% -1.01% -0.60%

Virginia VA -0.34% -0.81% -1.22% -1.00% -0.63%

New Hampshire NH -0.30% -0.77% -1.22% -1.07% -0.67%South Carolina SC -0.30% -0.76% -1.20% -1.03% -0.60%

California CA -0.32% -0.77% -1.20% -1.03% -0.73%

North Dakota ND -0.34% -0.81% -1.19% -1.00% -0.70%

Alabama AL -0.33% -0.79% -1.19% -0.95% -0.57%

Alaska AK -0.24% -0.67% -1.16% -1.20% -0.98%


Delaware DE -0.28% -0.69% -1.07% -0.87% -0.44%

Oregon OR -0.31% -0.74% -1.07% -0.78% -0.40%

South Dakota SD -0.30% -0.71% -1.05% -0.81% -0.48%

Washington WA -0.27% -0.68% -1.02% -0.78% -0.34%

Connecticut CT -0.27% -0.66% -1.01% -0.81% -0.40%

Kansas KS -0.31% -0.72% -1.01% -0.73% -0.38%

Montana MT -0.32% -0.75% -1.00% -0.62% -0.18%Tennessee TN -0.27% -0.66% -0.97% -0.71% -0.26%


Minnesota MN -0.25% -0.62% -0.94% -0.72% -0.31%

Illinois IL -0.29% -0.67% -0.89% -0.46% 0.11%

New York NY -0.27% -0.61% -0.86% -0.55% -0.22%Maine ME -0.24% -0.58% -0.86% -0.62% -0.22%

Missouri MO -0.25% -0.61% -0.84% -0.46% 0.08%

Pennsylvania PA -0.28% -0.63% -0.84% -0.45% -0.02%

Maryland MD -0.26% -0.61% -0.84% -0.45% 0.09%

Nebraska NE -0.27% -0.60% -0.83% -0.57% -0.26%

Rhode Island RI -0.24% -0.58% -0.83% -0.53% -0.08%

Vermont VT -0.24% -0.58% -0.81% -0.45% 0.06%

Iowa IA -0.24% -0.57% -0.79% -0.53% -0.13%

New Jersey NJ -0.24% -0.58% -0.77% -0.37% 0.18%

Idaho ID -0.23% -0.55% -0.76% -0.45% 0.01%

Ohio OH -0.25% -0.57% -0.75% -0.39% 0.00%


Indiana IN -0.24% -0.52% -0.67% -0.30% 0.10%

Hawaii HI -0.19% -0.44% -0.67% -0.50% -0.20%

Michigan MI -0.25% -0.53% -0.65% -0.23% 0.19%

Wisconsin WI -0.21% -0.49% -0.65% -0.28% 0.22%

US -0.31% -0.76% -1.12% -0.88% -0.49%

Page 16


19/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing ScenarioTotal Employment


Texas TX -48.9 -217.6 -364.5 -318.3 -235.8

California CA -120.5 -190.1 -291.9 -220.4 -144.8

Florida FL -86.7 -145.0 -228.2 -197.9 -143.7New York NY -66.3 -101.0 -143.1 -94.1 -50.8

Pennsylvania PA -46.0 -70.9 -108.3 -80.2 -48.7

Georgia GA -31.4 -63.5 -105.5 -90.6 -54.2

Illinois IL -42.9 -69.3 -104.3 -64.8 -25.1

Ohio OH -39.6 -65.4 -98.9 -66.6 -32.4

Virginia VA -26.6 -50.0 -87.2 -85.1 -74.6

North Carolina NC -29.2 -54.9 -85.9 -69.3 -34.8

Arizona AZ -25.4 -45.8 -75.7 -63.6 -46.0

Colorado CO -17.7 -43.2 -74.1 -65.0 -47.7

Michigan MI -32.3 -45.6 -65.0 -39.3 -15.5Louisiana LA -8.7 -32.7 -62.1 -62.1 -51.9

New Jersey NJ -18.6 -38.1 -61.9 -50.7 -26.1

Oklahoma OK -0.3 -35.7 -61.0 -56.6 -43.9

Washington WA -18.1 -34.2 -53.0 -38.5 -14.4Kentucky KY -11.9 -32.3 -52.7 -41.6 -25.3

Massachusetts MA -17.5 -34.4 -52.6 -39.9 -17.3

Indiana IN -24.3 -35.3 -52.3 -33.8 -14.2

Tennessee TN -17.6 -33.1 -50.8 -39.4 -16.7

Nevada NV -13.6 -27.2 -50.1 -47.6 -38.2

Missouri MO -14.6 -28.4 -46.7 -39.3 -21.7

South Carolina SC -14.5 -28.2 -45.8 -38.7 -21.8

Alabama AL -16.3 -28.0 -44.4 -35.7 -23.8

Maryland MD -13.1 -26.7 -43.2 -35.4 -18.7

Minnesota MN -11.6 -24.0 -40.1 -34.9 -20.2

Oregon OR -14.8 -24.2 -37.2 -27.4 -16.1

Wisconsin WI -11.1 -23.3 -36.9 -24.2 -2.3

Utah UT -8.2 -18.9 -32.2 -28.2 -20.5West Virginia WV 0.1 -15.3 -30.8 -31.3 -25.8

Mississippi MS -10.6 -18.9 -30.2 -24.3 -16.0

Arkansas AR -4.7 -18.0 -27.3 -21.3 -13.6

Kansas KS -9.9 -17.1 -25.9 -19.2 -12.1

New Mexico NM -3.7 -13.0 -23.7 -22.9 -18.7Connecticut CT -6.6 -13.5 -22.2 -18.6 -9.8

Wyoming WY 2.7 -10.8 -22.2 -24.1 -21.4

Iowa IA -8.0 -14.4 -21.8 -15.0 -3.5

Nebraska NE -7.0 -10.2 -14.7 -10.4 -6.2

Montana MT -2.0 -7.4 -12.9 -11.5 -8.7

New Hampshire NH -3.9 -7.9 -12.3 -8.6 -2.9

Idaho ID -3.2 -6.6 -10.9 -8.7 -4.2

Maine ME -3.2 -6.1 -9.9 -9.2 -6.2

North Dakota ND -1.0 -6.0 -9.9 -8.4 -5.8

Hawaii HI -2.2 -4.5 -8.0 -7.9 -5.5

South Dakota SD -3.1 -5.3 -7.8 -5.5 -3.0

Delaware DE -2.2 -4.5 -7.8 -7.6 -5.4

Rhode Island RI -2.2 -4.2 -6.6 -5.6 -3.0


Alaska AK -0.4 -2.3 -5.1 -5.4 -4.0

Vermont VT -1.2 -2.6 -4.3 -3.4 -1.4

US -922.4 -1,858.9 -2,976.3 -2,406.2 -1,531.4

Page 17


20/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing ScenarioTotal Employment


Wyoming WY 0.93% -3.62% -7.24% -7.78% -6.86%

West Virginia WV 0.02% -2.02% -3.92% -3.90% -3.18%

Nevada NV -1.12% -2.15% -3.65% -3.29% -2.55%Oklahoma OK -0.02% -2.18% -3.56% -3.21% -2.45%

Texas TX -0.46% -1.96% -3.10% -2.60% -1.88%

Louisiana LA -0.45% -1.66% -3.04% -3.00% -2.48%

Colorado CO -0.77% -1.80% -2.93% -2.49% -1.79%

Montana MT -0.45% -1.63% -2.71% -2.36% -1.76%

Kentucky KY -0.67% -1.74% -2.71% -2.07% -1.24%

Arizona AZ -1.02% -1.75% -2.69% -2.16% -1.51%

Florida FL -1.16% -1.85% -2.68% -2.20% -1.54%

New Mexico NM -0.45% -1.51% -2.60% -2.44% -1.95%

North Dakota ND -0.27% -1.60% -2.54% -2.08% -1.42%Mississippi MS -0.96% -1.64% -2.50% -1.97% -1.28%

Georgia GA -0.79% -1.53% -2.39% -1.98% -1.15%

Utah UT -0.66% -1.44% -2.30% -1.93% -1.36%

South Carolina SC -0.78% -1.45% -2.23% -1.82% -1.01%Arkansas AR -0.41% -1.49% -2.17% -1.64% -1.03%

Virginia VA -0.72% -1.30% -2.15% -2.02% -1.73%

Alabama AL -0.86% -1.42% -2.15% -1.68% -1.10%

Oregon OR -0.91% -1.42% -2.06% -1.47% -0.85%


California CA -0.84% -1.26% -1.85% -1.35% -0.87%

Ohio OH -0.78% -1.26% -1.83% -1.22% -0.59%

New Hampshire NH -0.62% -1.21% -1.81% -1.25% -0.41%

South Dakota SD -0.77% -1.27% -1.81% -1.25% -0.67%

Pennsylvania PA -0.81% -1.21% -1.80% -1.31% -0.79%

Kansas KS -0.73% -1.22% -1.77% -1.28% -0.80%

Indiana IN -0.86% -1.22% -1.74% -1.11% -0.46%

Tennessee TN -0.66% -1.19% -1.73% -1.30% -0.54%Illinois IL -0.75% -1.18% -1.72% -1.05% -0.40%

Delaware DE -0.53% -1.02% -1.69% -1.59% -1.11%

Washington WA -0.63% -1.14% -1.69% -1.20% -0.44%

Missouri MO -0.54% -1.01% -1.61% -1.34% -0.73%

Michigan MI -0.83% -1.16% -1.61% -0.96% -0.38%New York NY -0.77% -1.15% -1.59% -1.02% -0.55%

Maine ME -0.53% -1.00% -1.58% -1.43% -0.96%


Idaho ID -0.51% -1.01% -1.56% -1.21% -0.57%

Maryland MD -0.51% -1.01% -1.56% -1.24% -0.64%

Alaska AK -0.13% -0.71% -1.50% -1.54% -1.12%

New Jersey NJ -0.47% -0.94% -1.48% -1.19% -0.60%

Nebraska NE -0.74% -1.04% -1.44% -0.99% -0.58%

Vermont VT -0.40% -0.87% -1.39% -1.06% -0.45%

Minnesota MN -0.43% -0.87% -1.39% -1.18% -0.67%

Iowa IA -0.54% -0.94% -1.38% -0.93% -0.21%

Rhode Island RI -0.48% -0.88% -1.35% -1.13% -0.61%

Connecticut CT -0.40% -0.81% -1.29% -1.07% -0.56%

Wisconsin WI -0.40% -0.82% -1.24% -0.79% -0.08%

Hawaii HI -0.36% -0.71% -1.21% -1.16% -0.80%


US -0.69% -1.35% -2.06% -1.63% -1.02%

Page 18


21/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing ScenarioReal Gross State Product


California CA -18,468 -28,937 -43,689 -38,017 -28,972

Texas TX -6,462 -22,225 -36,796 -35,371 -29,037

New York NY -10,338 -15,302 -20,795 -14,653 -8,002Florida FL -8,240 -13,256 -20,441 -18,881 -14,831

Illinois IL -5,931 -9,024 -12,361 -7,979 -2,276

Pennsylvania PA -4,892 -7,451 -10,357 -6,944 -3,026

Georgia GA -3,344 -6,256 -10,174 -9,930 -7,262

Virginia VA -3,807 -6,526 -10,028 -8,637 -6,237

North Carolina NC -3,169 -5,791 -9,054 -8,254 -5,315

Ohio OH -3,888 -5,982 -8,254 -5,499 -2,426

New Jersey NJ -3,196 -5,715 -8,054 -5,590 -1,374

Colorado CO -2,218 -4,610 -7,686 -7,326 -5,928

Arizona AZ -2,729 -4,586 -7,334 -6,735 -5,393Massachusetts MA -2,630 -4,660 -6,829 -5,730 -3,154

Washington WA -2,378 -4,234 -6,453 -5,630 -3,337

Michigan MI -3,322 -4,669 -6,038 -3,386 -725

Louisiana LA -1,107 -3,098 -5,653 -6,087 -5,500Maryland MD -1,893 -3,436 -4,999 -3,692 -1,204

Minnesota MN -1,761 -3,179 -4,849 -4,293 -2,550

Tennessee TN -1,850 -3,236 -4,831 -4,190 -2,329

Oklahoma OK -261 -2,691 -4,508 -4,439 -3,634

Connecticut CT -1,563 -2,831 -4,344 -3,895 -2,453

Indiana IN -2,194 -3,051 -4,122 -2,611 -930

Missouri MO -1,591 -2,870 -4,120 -3,012 -999

Kentucky KY -1,270 -2,686 -4,098 -3,327 -2,215

Alabama AL -1,574 -2,580 -3,900 -3,281 -2,278

Nevada NV -1,332 -2,331 -3,816 -3,514 -2,717

Oregon OR -1,644 -2,548 -3,737 -2,930 -1,836

Wisconsin WI -1,426 -2,524 -3,591 -2,506 -490

South Carolina SC -1,220 -2,244 -3,554 -3,347 -2,321Utah UT -889 -1,794 -2,962 -2,876 -2,365

Kansas KS -1,019 -1,714 -2,477 -1,920 -1,206

Arkansas AR -570 -1,620 -2,412 -2,045 -1,451

Iowa IA -889 -1,526 -2,187 -1,758 -904

Mississippi MS -848 -1,415 -2,132 -1,769 -1,200New Mexico NM -468 -1,208 -2,059 -2,060 -1,731

West Virginia WV -185 -1,109 -1,898 -1,678 -1,138

Wyoming WY 47 -840 -1,672 -1,898 -1,774

Nebraska NE -740 -1,092 -1,509 -1,107 -655

District of Columbia DC -542 -961 -1,397 -1,141 -545

New Hampshire NH -464 -853 -1,355 -1,290 -928

Delaware DE -438 -806 -1,270 -1,171 -762

Idaho ID -341 -608 -885 -672 -241

Maine ME -321 -559 -818 -698 -393

Hawaii HI -325 -547 -807 -724 -430

Rhode Island RI -310 -547 -791 -626 -285

South Dakota SD -328 -534 -776 -627 -427

Montana MT -206 -522 -768 -578 -325

North Dakota ND -129 -474 -763 -708 -562

Alaska AK -155 -360 -668 -763 -662

Vermont VT -170 -305 -439 -325 -113

US -114,985 -207,923 -314,513 -266,118 -176,850

Page 19


22/22

Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing ScenarioReal Gross State Product


Wyoming WY 0.24% -4.03% -7.53% -8.01% -7.15%

West Virginia WV -0.41% -2.36% -3.79% -3.15% -2.05%

Oklahoma OK -0.25% -2.39% -3.67% -3.32% -2.57%Louisiana LA -0.74% -1.96% -3.32% -3.35% -2.89%

Texas TX -0.70% -2.22% -3.31% -2.87% -2.20%

Colorado CO -1.10% -2.12% -3.22% -2.81% -2.14%

Nevada NV -1.29% -2.10% -3.11% -2.60% -1.89%

Arizona AZ -1.30% -2.03% -2.92% -2.41% -1.80%

New Mexico NM -0.76% -1.84% -2.88% -2.64% -2.09%

Kentucky KY -0.98% -1.98% -2.86% -2.19% -1.40%

North Dakota ND -0.55% -1.92% -2.85% -2.43% -1.83%

Utah UT -1.00% -1.87% -2.79% -2.46% -1.90%

Florida FL -1.37% -2.04% -2.78% -2.30% -1.69%Arkansas AR -0.72% -1.91% -2.63% -2.05% -1.37%

Virginia VA -1.18% -1.86% -2.60% -2.05% -1.40%

Mississippi MS -1.19% -1.87% -2.59% -2.00% -1.29%

Georgia GA -0.98% -1.70% -2.50% -2.22% -1.52%Montana MT -0.75% -1.80% -2.48% -1.75% -0.94%

Alabama AL -1.15% -1.76% -2.45% -1.90% -1.25%

California CA -1.19% -1.73% -2.39% -1.90% -1.36%

South Carolina SC -0.95% -1.64% -2.38% -2.06% -1.35%

New Hampshire NH -0.94% -1.63% -2.38% -2.09% -1.43%

South Dakota SD -1.10% -1.69% -2.27% -1.71% -1.11%


Kansas KS -1.04% -1.64% -2.21% -1.59% -0.95%

Oregon OR -1.15% -1.65% -2.20% -1.57% -0.92%

Delaware DE -0.89% -1.50% -2.16% -1.82% -1.12%

Illinois IL -1.17% -1.69% -2.15% -1.30% -0.34%

Pennsylvania PA -1.11% -1.59% -2.07% -1.31% -0.55%

Washington WA -0.88% -1.46% -2.05% -1.64% -0.92%Connecticut CT -0.85% -1.44% -2.04% -1.70% -1.02%

Alaska AK -0.53% -1.17% -2.01% -2.11% -1.73%

Tennessee TN -0.90% -1.46% -1.99% -1.57% -0.82%


Ohio OH -1.02% -1.48% -1.92% -1.20% -0.51%Nebraska NE -1.08% -1.50% -1.91% -1.31% -0.74%

New York NY -1.07% -1.50% -1.91% -1.24% -0.64%

Minnesota MN -0.81% -1.36% -1.90% -1.55% -0.87%

Missouri MO -0.83% -1.42% -1.90% -1.29% -0.41%

Maryland MD -0.84% -1.41% -1.88% -1.28% -0.40%

Maine ME -0.80% -1.33% -1.82% -1.45% -0.78%

Vermont VT -0.80% -1.36% -1.82% -1.26% -0.42%

Rhode Island RI -0.81% -1.34% -1.82% -1.35% -0.59%

New Jersey NJ -0.81% -1.37% -1.80% -1.17% -0.28%

Indiana IN -1.08% -1.42% -1.78% -1.06% -0.36%

Iowa IA -0.81% -1.33% -1.78% -1.37% -0.69%

Michigan MI -1.07% -1.44% -1.75% -0.93% -0.19%

Idaho ID -0.75% -1.24% -1.63% -1.13% -0.38%

Wisconsin WI -0.73% -1.20% -1.57% -1.02% -0.19%


Hawaii HI -0.64% -1.02% -1.39% -1.17% -0.66%

US -0.99% -1.67% -2.33% -1.82% -1.15%

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	energy-tomorrow
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing (Task 3)

Documents